6/28/2023 0 Comments Remarks on Impossibility, Incompleteness, Paraconsistency, Un... by Michael Starks![]() ![]() I define a procedure running on contextual parameters (partiality, perspective and approximation) as a means of representing the role of pragmatics as a filter for semantic interpretation. Definite descriptions express (i) what a speaker should have in mind in using certain words in a certain context and (ii) what a normal speaker is justified in saying in a context, given a common basic knowledge of the lexicon. I suggest an alternative approach to DD as contextuals, under a normative epistemic stance. I briefly discuss Michael Devitt’s and Joseph Almog’s treatments of referential descriptions, showing that they find it difficult to explain misdescriptions. I then accept the challenge of treating misdescriptions as a key to solving the problem of context dependent descriptions. I then show that this proposal seems unable to treat the normal uses of misdescriptions. ) unificationist “explicit” approach given by Buchanan and Ostertag. I examine one of the best versions of the (. I explain what I mean by "essentially" incomplete descriptions: incomplete descriptions are context dependent descriptions. With regard to the debate between a unificationist and an ambiguity approach to the formal treatment of definite descriptions (introduction), I will support the former against the latter. In this paper I offer a defence of a Russellian analysis of the referential uses of incomplete (mis)descriptions, in a contextual setting. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |